J.Jayalalithaa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 June, 2008

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

J.Jayalalithaa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 June, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2253 (MAD.)

Bench: M.Jaichandren

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:   9.6.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
WRIT PETITION No.33724 of 2007
J.Jayalalithaa 						...  Petitioner

						Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu   						
   represented by its Chief Secretary
   Secretariat
   Chennai-600 009

2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu
   Home Department
   Secretariat 
   Chennai-600 009

3. The Director General of Police
   Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
   Chennai-600 004

4. The Commissioner of Police
   Greater Chennai
   Egmore, Chennai-600 008

5. M.Karunanidhi
   Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
   Secretariat  
   Chennai-600 009    				   ...  Respondents


	This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to ensure full protection to the petitioner herein at the residence as required to a person who has got threat perception and has been ordered to be given protection in the category of "Z +" (very very high risk) by providing "Z +" security scale as mandated in the circulars/directions/orders in this context and thus render justice. 


		For petitioner  :   Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan

		For respondents :   Mr.G.Masilamani
					     Advocate General 
					     Assisted by Mr.D.Srinivasan 
			           Additional Government Pleader		

	
O R D E R

Heard Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Srinivasan, the learned Additional Government, Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has stated that she is the General Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which is a State Political Party recognised by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner was a Member of Parliament of the Rajya Sabha from 1984 to 1989. She has also served as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 1989 and 1991, when she was the leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu from 1991 to 1996 and from 2001 to 2006.

3. The petitioner has further stated that she has been the target of attack for the opposition parties including the members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party. On 25.3.1989, when the Budget session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was being held, she was assaulted in the presence of the fifth respondent, who was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu at that time.

4. The petitioner has further stated that after the Ministry headed by the fifth respondent had been dismissed in the month of January 1991, President's Rule was imposed in the State of Tamil Nadu. After the dissolution of the Ministry headed by the fifth respondent and on the imposition of the President's Rule in the State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner had come from Hyderabad to Chennai. On her arrival, she had found that National Security Guard Commandos, who were also called as 'Black Cats', had been assigned to protect her. Since then, the National Security Guard Commandos had been protecting the petitioner whenever she moved out or travelled, as she has been placed in the "Z +" category of Security.

5. The petitioner has further stated that during her tenure as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, she had taken strong action against several militant groups, such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA), Tamil National Retrieval Troop (TNRT) and the Naxalites, who were earlier called as peoples' War Group (PWG) Naxalites. She had also initiated several steps to declare the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam as a banned organisation in India. Subsequently, the said militant outfit was declared as a banned organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The ban imposed on the said militant outfit continues till date as it has been extended, periodically. The petitioner had also taken steps in curtailing the illegal activities of the forest brigand Veerappan, who was killed in the year 2004, when she was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.

6. It has also been stated that several attempts have been made to eliminate the petitioner politically. After she had demitted office as the Chief Minister in the year 1996, as well as in the year 2006, the Police Protection given to her by the State had been drastically reduced and it was almost non-existent. However, false claims have been repeatedly made by the respondents as though sufficient security had been provided to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has further stated that several attempts have been made on her life within a short span of time from the year 2006. The first one was on 8.11.2006, when a person by name Joshua Karthikeyan had made an attempt to gain entry into her house by forcibly dashing his vehicle against the gate guarding her house. The second incident had taken place on 16.10.2007, when a stranger entered her house through the main gate and had reached the first floor of the house where the petitioner's personal room is located. Curiously, on both the occasions, the Police Department had made statements claiming that the intruders were mentally retarded persons.

8. The petitioner has also stated that apart from the attack on her in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in the year 1989, another attempt on her life was made, on 24.2.1990, when she was returning from Pondicherry, after participating in an election campaign. A lorry was deliberately rammed against her vehicle, due to which she had sustained grievous injuries leading to her hospitalisation for several days. The lorry driver had been let off with a token fine of Rs.1,750/-. The petitioner has claimed that the cumulative effect of the incidents narrated by her would illustrate that her life is in constant danger and the persons who stand to gain by her death are her political adversaries.

9. The petitioner has further stated that after the incident, on 16.10.2007, no Police Officer had met her or made any attempt to meet her to enquire about her personal safety. Immediately after the incident had taken place on 16.10.2007, several representations were given to the respondents 2 to 4 with regard to the lack of sufficient security for the protection of the petitioner. Inspite of such representations sufficient security has not been provided to the petitioner, as claimed by the respondents. In fact, a statement had been made by the fifth respondent in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly claiming that 50 Police personnel were on duty at the petitioner's house for each shift, which would mean that 150 Police personnel were deployed every day, as reported by the print and electronic media, on 18.10.2007. However, on 19.10.2007, it was reported that only 50 Police men were on duty for all the three shifts together.

10. It has also been stated that under similar circumstances, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri N.Chandrababu Naidu, has been provided with 57 security personnel during each shift.

11. The petitioner has also stated that the protection given to her at the Airports, which are available for all the National Security Guard protectees, has been minimised at the instance of the fifth respondent.

12. The petitioner has also stated that she is given to understand that for a person who is provided with Security in the "Z +" category, the following arrangements should always be made available, round the clock.

"a) Anti sabotage Squad to check any possible bombs, fire arms etc. within the vicinity of the residence of the protectee and such a search shall be made with sniffer dogs;

b) The vehicle owned by the person and the convoy vehicles have to be checked in a routine manner;

c) Extension Mirror (bed type) to check the vehicles which are coming within the vicinity of the residence of the person under protection;

d) Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD);

e) Letter bomb detector to check the letters addressed to the person under the coverage of security;

f) Bullet proof vehicle with spare vehicle of the same nature have to be provided;

g) Ambulance with blood group of the protectee, stretcher and other life supporting items such as oxygen, first aid box with medicines, etc., should be made available;

h) Jammer vehicle;

i) Police drivers (not private drivers hired by the Police Department, but drivers recruited by the Police Department);

j) Close circuit TV to monitor the movement of persons and vehicles;

k) Petrol driven vehicles must be provided and not diesel driven vehicles;

l) Walkie-Talkie sets have to be provided to the protective force which is an essential instrument to communicate;

m) Search light around the house should be made available; and

n) Provision of two vehicles."

13. It has also been stated that the above arrangements are essential and form an integral part of the security system given to persons who are placed under the "Z +" high risk Security category. However, none of the above arrangements had been made available at any point of time, after she had demitted office as Chief Minister. Inspite of knowing full well that such arrangements are to be made to provide sufficient security to persons in the "Z +" Security Category, the respondents have failed to comply with the requirements.

14. It has also been stated that the Police protection to be provided to the petitioner is not a bounty flowing from the pleasure of the respondents as the petitioner is a former Chief Minister, who is holding the rank of a Cabinet Minister in view of her position as the Leader of the Opposition in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State Government has to fulfil its duty of protecting every person to whom the National Security Guard Protection is being provided.

15. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that in the year 1988, the Special Protection Group Act, (Act No.34/1988), which is a Central Legislation, had come into force. Once a person is identified for being provided with the protection under the statute, the responsibility of providing such protection cannot be abdicated by the State Government as it is a statutory responsibility. Such protection is to be given not only to the protectee but also to the immediate members of his or her family. The State Government ought to have provided such protection to the petitioner complying with the same standards prescribed by the Central Government. Providing security to a person in the "Z +" category is not dictated by the will and pleasure of the State Government as it is its constitutional duty. However, inspite of such obligations, the State Government has not even provided the minimum protection to the petitioner, despite repeated threats to her life. The State Government is liable and responsible to protect the rights of the petitioner, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, with such force, arms and equipment, which are necessary for her full and complete protection. Since the State Government has failed in fulfilling its obligations, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the reliefs as stated therein.

16. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the allegations made by the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been denied.

17. It has been stated that the petitioner has been given the "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover. The protection given was not reduced even after the petitioner had demitted office as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. After demitting office during the year 1996, the petitioner had been provided with "Z +" Scale of Security with the necessary security arrangements which are as follows:

(i) 2 Armed guards of 1 HC & 4 PCs each

(ii) 2 Personal Security Officers-1 Inspector and 1 PC equipped with Pistol/Sten Gun, have been provided for three shifts.

(iii) An armed escort of 1 SI & 3 PCs in 2 shifts

(iv) One watcher at a time in 2 shifts.

Summary Inspr.

SI HC PC Total Armed Guard

2 8 10

PSO 3

3 6

Armed Escort(2 shifts)

6 8

Screening Watchers

2 2

NSG Commandos

Total 32

18. Further, enhanced security of "Z +" with National Security Guard cover has been provided from 1.6.2001 as per the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Circular Memorandum in SCA.8 No.58333-1/2001, dated 1.6.2001. This was ratified by the Security Review Committee, dated 5.7.2001. The same scale of security has been provided to the petitioner even after she had demitted office in the year 2006 and it is continued till date.

19. It has been further stated that as per the guidelines communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, (Security Arrangements for the protection of Individuals), the following arrangements have to be made for the security of "Z +" scale category protectees.

"Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office, two escorts of strength 1-3 each with automatic weapons, two personnel security officers round the clock - one in uniform with automatic weapon and the other with a concealed small arm, two Watchers at a time during day and one at night, Bullet Proof Car for road journey, 1 Inspector/SI in charge of security arrangements round the clock, perimeter wall and fencing of sufficient height, perimeter lighting, access control measures for searching, frisking, screening and communcation - 2 at a time including 1 lady Officer, Area Security around the residence and Office, Regular anti-sabotage check by trained security personnel with technical equipment and sniffer dogs and Ring Round teams at the venues of public functions depending on local threat perception."

20. It has also been stated that a decision had been taken in the Security Review Committee in its last meeting held on 25.9.2007, to continue "Z +" Scale of Security with National Security Guard cover to the petitioner and the same has been provided. In keeping with the "Z +" Security Scale requirements, the following security arrangements had been made for the protection of the petitioner. The details of police strength are as follows:

	     Details of Police Strength			 Total
i. One Personal Security Officer (PSO) with 9mm (1x3) = 3
   pistol at the level of Inspector at a time in
   3 shifts

ii. One additional PSO in the rank of Head 	   (1x3) = 3
    Constable with AK-47 weapon




iii Two escorts consisting of 2 SIs and 6      (2+6x3)= 24
    other ranks (each with strength of 1 SI
    and 3 ors) with automatic weapons, in 3 shifts 

iv. Uniformed Police Guard with 2 Sentries     (2 + 8)= 10
    at a time

v.  Two PCs/HCs for watcher duty security 	  (2 + 1)=  3
    screening and for communication during 
    day and one at night

vi. NSG Commandos carrying fire power in two   (1+5x2)= 12
    cars while the VIP is on the move in 
    2 shifts

							Total			 55

21. It has also been submitted that in addition to the arrangements mentioned above, the local police is also regularly marching Police beats and Police patrol to watch and screen the movement of strangers in the area. Strong bandobust is also arranged whenever party functions or gatherings are organised in the Poes Garden area. Apart from the police security arrangements, there are other privately engaged security personnel deployed by the petitioner round the clock, to man the main entry gate and to verify the genuineness of the visitors and the permission is granted to them by the inmates for their entry.

22. It has been further submitted that on 8.11.2006, when one Karthick @ Joshua, a resident of 4/165 Selva Vinayagar Street, Thandalam, Chennai, attempted to trespass into Poes Garden, the Police Personnel on security duty at the residence of the petitioner prevented him from committing such trespass. He was handed over to the Teynampet Police Station and a case in Crime No.937/2006, was registered against him. He was convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 weeks, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code in CC.No.376 of 2007. He was also fined a sum of Rs.200/-. The allegation that the Police protection to the petitioner was reduced to almost zero level after the petitioner demitted office is not true. Enhanced security of "Z +" with National Security Guard security cover has been provided to the petitioner from 1.6.2001, as per the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Circular Memorandum in SCA.8 No.58333-1/2001, dated 1.6.2001, as stated earlier.

23. With regard to the incident, which had taken place, on 16.10.2007, it has been stated that one Dhandapani, who was working as a Security guard at Mahendra Garments Company, Tiruppur, had come to Chennai with the intention of requesting the petitioner for a security guard job. He is a sympathiser of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and his late father was an active member of the party. When Dhandapani had approached the main gate at the residence of the petitioner he was stopped by the Sentry Police Constable, but Rajarajan, the petitioner's own privately engaged security staff deployed at the main entry gate, had allowed Dhandapani inside the premises. However, Thiru. V.Kuppuraj, the Personnel Security Officer of the petitioner and a few others available at that place, had questioned Dhandapani and later, he was handed over to E-3, Teynampet Police Station. A case in Crime No.1344/2007, had been registered against Dhandapani, under Section 448 Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint of S.Poonkundran, working as an Assistant at the petitioner's residence.

24. It has been further stated that neither the National Security Guard Personnel nor the Police Personnel are allowed to enter the premises of the petitioner. Only the Personal Security Officers and the Additional Personal Security Officers are allowed to enter the premises. The private Security Guards engaged by the petitioner at the main entry gate are allowed to move inside the premises. By practice, whenever any visitor approaches for entry at the gate, the private security guard decides, in consultation with the inmates at the residence, whether the visitor is to be allowed inside the premises or not. Only the visitors, who are specifically permitted by the private security guards, are allowed to be frisked and their belongings are checked by the Police Security Personnel.

25. The allegation of the petitioner that no Police Officer had met her or made any attempt to meet her to enquire about her personnel safety is incorrect as an Investigation Officer had visited the petitioner's residence and when he had wanted to meet the petitioner, he was not allowed to meet her. However, the Investigation Officer made enquiries with the inmates and the party functionaries present at the place and he had recorded their statements.

26. It is further stated that in order to review the security arrangements provided to the petitioner and other protectees, a Security Review Committee meeting is conducted by the State Government once in 6 months in which senior Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service Officers participate.

27. It has been further submitted that appropriate action has been taken to protect the petitioner by deploying sufficient police personnel as per the "Z +" Security Scale and it would be continued as long as it is found to be necessary. After the recent incidents, which are reported to have taken place, fresh threat assessment reports were called for from the Chennai City Police, Special Branch C.I.D, Special Division, 'Q' Branch C.I.D. and Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau. The inputs obtained from the above units would be placed in the Security Review Committee meeting to be convened, on 26.10.2007. The security arrangements provided to Shri N.Chandrababu Naidu, the former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, would have been decided and necessary arrangements would have been made by the Government concerned according to his threat perception and depending upon the local situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

28. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is being provided with a strength of 55 police personnel for her security. Whenever the petitioner moves out of the city, including her visits to Siruthavur in Kancheepuram District and Kodanad in the Nilgiris District, regular security schemes are being drawn and communications sent to the concerned jurisdictional officers to provide "Z +" Scale of Security. In addition, the local Police is also regularly marching Police beats and Police patrols to watch and screen the movement of strangers in the area. Strong bandobust is also arranged whenever the party functions or gatherings are organised in the Poes Garden area. Further, privately engaged security personnel have been deployed by the petitioner to man the main entry gate and to verify the genuineness of the visitors visiting her residence. Proper security arrangements are being made whenever the petitioner visits Airports in Tamil Nadu. During her visits to the Airports the security Branch alerts the local police and adequate bandobust is being provided.

29. It has also been submitted that regular anti-sabotage checks at the surrounding areas of the petitioner's residence and in the convoy are being made by Bomb Detection and Disposal trained personnel with the help of sniffer dogs and equipments. Provision of ambulance with life saving medicines and inclusion of Jammer vehicle in the convoy are not the security components for "Z +" category. Two petrol driven escort vehicles for the use of the State Police Personnel and two more escort vehicles for the use of the National Security Guard personnel are being regularly provided in connection with the security arrangements made for the protection of the petitioner. These escort cars are privately hired from the approved operators and the drivers are security vetted on a regular basis. The Police Personnel deployed for the security of the petitioner from SSD, Security Branch, National Security Guard personnel and Local Police are using Walkie-Talkie sets for their communication. Sufficient lighting facilities are already available around the residence of the petitioner.

30. It has also been submitted that the Security Branch is having only Bullet Proof Ambassador cars. The petitioner had not opted to use the Bullet Proof Ambassador Car for her movement. The petitioner has been travelling in her own vehicle. A letter has also been received by the Government from the Additional Director General of Police, (Intelligence) in this regard, on 4.11.2003. The State Government is bound to protect the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, since she is categorised as a protectee of "Z +" Security Scale. The State Government had never failed to provide adequate security arrangements to the petitioner on "Z +" Security scale. The Bullet Proof Ambassador car is always available for the use of the petitioner and if she prefers to use the Bullet Proof Ambassador car, it would be provided and it would remain in her convoy.

31. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are incorrect. The averment that the petitioner is given "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover and that the protection given has not been reduced even after the petitioner demitted office as the Chief Minister has been denied.

32. It has also been stated that the State Government cannot take credit for providing the security as National Security Guard cover has been provided by the Central Government. What has been shown under the heading summary has not been provided. It is a false claim that "Z +" category of Security has been provided to the petitioner. The marching of police beats and police patrols are non-existent.

33. It has been further stated that the employees meant for household purposes cannot be counted. They are neither trained nor authorized to use any weapons. Further, it is to be noted that a very lenient view has been taken with regard to those who had attempted to trespass into the petitioners house. Contradictory versions are given by the respondents with regard to such incidents resulting in serious suspicion about the bona fides of the claims made on behalf of the respondents. The illogical claims made with regard to the past incidents lead to the clear conclusion that there is a deep rooted conspiracy and the truth behind it is being camouflaged by the respondents by fabricated facts and concocted claims. When the petitioner had made a statement in her affidavit that no police officer had met her to enquire about her personal safety, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents states that the Investigating Officer had attempted to meet the petitioner regarding the incident that had taken place, on 16.10.2007. It is false to claim that no National Security Guard personnel are permitted to enter the residence of the petitioner. In fact, separate rooms have been provided, both for the National Security Guards and the regular Police Personnel. There are no personal security guards available at the petitioners residence as stated by the respondents.

34. It has been further stated that the household staff has no role to play in respect of the petitioners security, nor do they posses the weapons necessary to provide such protection. It is entirely the duty of the State Government to protect the petitioner in every possible way by taking proper steps. Since varying figures are being quoted by the respondents with regard to the number of security personnel being provided for the security of the petitioner and since the facts and figures provided by the respondents are incorrect, the petitioner is under a serious apprehension about the seriousness of the respondents in providing her the necessary security. The Review Meeting claimed to have been convened, on 26.10.2007, is only after an incident had taken place on 16.10.2007. It goes to show the casual approach of the respondents with regard to the petitioners personal security.

35. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the claim made by the second respondent that the security arrangements made with regard to the Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri. N.Chandrababu Naidu, who is also a Z + Category protectee, are on a different footing cannot be accepted. While the respondents are not interested in giving the same extent of security protection as provided to the Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, they should realise that "Z +" category protectees, whether in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Tamil Nadu, are to be treated alike and it cannot be stated by the respondents that the security arrangements provided to the Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh is in accordance with the threat perception prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the same would not be applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu. The claim made by the respondents that a total number of 55 police personnel are being provided for the protection of the petitioner is incorrect. Only a depleted strength of security personnel are available for the protection of the petitioner when she is at her residence and also when she travels to the various places during her visits and at times it is reduced to zero level. No efforts have been made by the respondents to increase the level of security to the petitioner even after several attempts had been made against her life. There are no regular marching police beats by the local police or any vigilance provided by the police patrol in the area where the petitioner resides. The respondents cannot support their claims with any documentary evidence. Further, it is the duty of the security personnel to verify the identity of the visitors. The household staff cannot be made responsible for the same.

36. The petitioner has also stated that sniffer dogs have not been used for providing security to the petitioner after she had demitted office as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondents are not correct in stating that "Z +" Scale of Security does not include a provision for an ambulance with life saving medicines and a Jammer vehicle being included in the convoy of the vehicles providing security to the protectee. In fact, they are a part and parcel of the security component to be provided in respect of a "Z +" category protectee.

37. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the respondents are deliberately providing the worst possible vehicles for the use of the National Security Guard commandos and such vehicles are not able to travel fast enough to keep up with the other vehicles in the convoy of the petitioner, especially, when she is travelling long distances. The vehicles, which are hired privately, have been breaking down on numerous occasions. The drivers hired privately are not capable of meeting the situations encountered during her journeys.

38. Both the vehicles and the drivers should not be obtained from private sources. They should be only from the Police Department, as outsourcing from private entities could pose a security hazard. The respondents have not provided walkie-talkie and lighting facilities as claimed by them. The petitioner had never refused to accept the Bullet Proof Car. No letter has been written by the petitioner stating that she was unwilling to accept the Bullet Proof Ambassador Car. The claim made by the respondents that the petitioner has been provided "Z +" category Scale of Security is false. Such a scale of security was never given to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to provide the scale of security indicated by the circular forming part of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the respondents.

39. In the affidavit filed by the second respondent as a rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the allegations and averments contained in the petitioner's reply affidavit had been denied.

40. It has been stated that the police strength deployed for the protection of the petitioner, as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, are true and correct and based on facts. The facts stated in the counter affidavit are supported by adequate documents. No false claims had been made in the counter affidavit as alleged by the petitioner. Senior Officers have been supervising the beat constables and relevant entries had been made in their Weekly Reports.

41. With regard to the incidents cited by the petitioner necessary action had been taken against the concerned persons in accordance with law. The Security Review Committee had taken note of the instances, while reviewing the threat perception with regard to the petitioner's security. There are 55 police personnel, including the National Security Guard Personnel, who are placed on duty to perform their stipulated functions of providing security to the petitioner. As the petitioner is a "Z +" Scale category protectee, the State Government is committed to continue with the deployment of the security personnel as required for providing such protection. The guidelines issued by the Government of India in the year 2002 are being followed in providing protection to the petitoner. However, provision of ambulance with life saving medicines and inclusion of Jammer vehicle in the convoy are not the security components for "Z +" category protectees. Regular anti-sabotage checks with the help of sniffer dogs and other technical equipments are regularly carried out and such checks are supported by adequate documents. Whenever the petitioner undertakes a journey, four escort vehicles are provided, two for the National Security Guard personnel and two for the State Police escort personnel. The escort vehicles are privately hired. Their road worthiness is checked and the drivers are security vetted. The vehicles are hired only from the approved operators. The escort vehicles are fitted with wireless sets and they are in regular communication with the Secretariat Security District's Control Room. The police personnel on watcher duty also carry walkie-talkie sets. A bullet proof ambassador car bearing Registration No.TN 07 AG 2548 (2007 model), along with the driver, has been handed over to Thiru V.Kuppuraj, Inspector of Police and Personal Security Officer of the petitioner, on 3.11.2007, under proper acknowledgement.

42. Further, the "Z +" scale of security arrangements will continue to be provided to the petitioner and necessary security would be provided to the petitioner, depending on the report of the Security Review Committee, based on the threat perception. The State Government would not abdicate its powers vested in it for providing security to the protectees, including the power of supervising and monitoring the functions of the security personnel.

43. A memo, dated 15.4.2008, has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner showing the duty strength particulars relating to the security provided to her and stating that it is inadequate. It has also been pointed out that adequate perimeter lighting has not been provided at her residence. Showing specific instances, it has been stated that sufficient security arrangements had not been made when the petitioner had attended public functions, especially, at the Anna Memorial, on 15.9.2007, at Muthuramalinga Thevar Memorial, Pasumpon, on 30.10.2007, and at Ramavaram Garden, Chennai, on 17.1.2008. Further, it has also been submitted that the armed reserve personnel provided are not trained in security duty. Therefore, they must be replaced with properly trained personnel, preferably from the Tamil Nadu Commando Force. The petitioner is to be provided with proper and sufficient security when she is attending public as well as private functions.

44. In the written submissions filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner is admittedly a "Z +" scale of security protectee with National Security Guard cover. As per the Circular Memorandum in SCA.8 No.58333-1/2001, dated 1.6.2001, the "Z" Scale of security provided to the petitioner was upgraded as "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover. This upgradation was ratified by the proceedings of the Security Review Committee meeting, dated 5.7.2001. Further, it has been confirmed in the subsequent meetings of the Security Review Committee held on 7.6.2006, 22.8.2006, 20.3.2007 and 25.9.2007.

45. It has been further submitted that while deciding on the level of threat, the Central Government as well as the State Government shall consider, among other things, as to whether the threat emanates from any militant or terrorist organisation or any other source and whether the threat is of a grave and continuing nature. Since the petitioner had taken effective steps to wipe out the terrorists from the State of Tamil Nadu, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam, her life is in danger from such terrorists and militant organisations. As the threat is of a grave and continuing nature, the security arrangements provided to the petitioner are inadequate, compared to the magnitude of the threat perception that is existing. The petitioner has also received serious threats from the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army. The level of threat posed to the life of the petitioner is not only grave but also continuous in nature and therefore, the protection measures taken by the respondents cannot be confined to the guidelines issued with regard to the providing of security to the protectees. The said guidelines have been issued prescribing the minimum security that has to be provided to the protectees. However, the maximum security protection must be given to the petitioner, taking into account the level of threat she is facing. The guidelines issued by the Department of Home Affairs, Government of India, does not prohibit the State Government from providing the maximum security required to protect her in all circumstances. The protection measures initiated by the respondents to provide the protection to the petitioner cannot be confined to the guidelines which could not have taken into account the seriousness of the nature of threat faced by the petitioner. Though the Government concerned has designated the petitioner as a "Z +" protectee with National Security Guard cover, the security personnel provided are not competent and qualified to be in the security management team. The security personnel provided by the Government must be of high integrity and they must be provided with the latest security gadgets and arms to face the threats emanating from the militants and the terrorists. The security provided to the petitioner cannot be based only on certain guidelines which have been issued as it would depend on the threat perception prevailing at the relevant point of time. The various incidents that had taken place recently, breaching the security cordon provided to the petitioner, should be taken into consideration by the respondents before assessing the threat perception. Under such circumstances, the petitioner ought to be provided with the following facilities, in addition to the facilities already in existence, including the National Security Guard cover.

"(a) The old and inconvenient Bullet Proof Ambassador Car should be replaced by some other modern vehicle to be chosen by the protectee. It is relevant to point out here that the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Dr.Y.S.Rajasekara Reddy and the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri.N.Chandrababu Naidu, have been provided with fleets of Bullet Proof Scorpio and Tata Safari Cars.

(b) Jammer Vehicle should be provided with technicians.

(c) VHF Set and Walkie-Talkie sets (10 Nos.) should be provided.

(d) Speed Doom Camera should be installed in the residence of the petitioner with operators in shifts.

(e) Full strength Force consisting of 189 police personnel should be provided as in the case of Shri.N.Chandrababu Naidu, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

(f) Escort police personnel consisting of 6 Reserved Sub Inspectors and 18 other police personnel totalling 24 (2x6=8x3=24 with two vehicles) should be provided from Tamil Nadu Commando Force instead of Chennai City Armed Police since the police personnel in Tamil Nadu Commando Force have been well trained in handling modern weapons and bomb detection equipment.

(g) During travel time, en route protection should be given.

(h) In and around public meeting places, elaborate bandobust arrangements should be made.

(i) Anti-sabotage check should be conducted in and around the place of stay, convoy en route, meeting place, etc.

(j) Lead Car (Security Box) should be provided.

(k) Sufficient lighting around the place of stay of the petitioner should be provided. It is pertinent to point out here that electricity connections from TNEB are being denied to old buildings in Kodanad Estate, where the petitioner is staying, in which the security personnel have to be lodged. Although the officers in-charge of her security insist that focus lights have to be installed in and around her residence, power supply is being denied by the State Government.

(l) Anti Sabotage Squad to check any possible bombs, fire arms etc. within the vicinity of the residence of the protectee and such a search shall be made with sniffer dogs;

(m) The vehicle owned by the person and the convoy vehicles have to be checked in a routine manner;

(n) Extension Mirror (bed type) to check the vehicles which are coming within the vicinity of the residence of the person under protection;

(o) Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD);

(p) Letter bomb detector to check the letters addressed to the person under the coverage of security;

(q) Ambulance with blood group of the protectee, stretcher and other life supporting items such as oxygen, first aid box with medicines, etc. should be made available;

(r) Police drivers (not private drivers hired by the Police Department, but drivers recruited by the Police Department);

(s) Petrol driven vehicles must be provided and not diesel driven vehicles;

(t) Any other step or equipment necessary to protect the life of the petitioner."

46. It has been prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to provide not only "Z +" security to the petitioner with National Security Guard cover, but also direct the respondents to provide additional security by giving suitable directions as prayed for. It has also been prayed that the petitioner may be granted liberty to move this Court again, if the petitioner finds any lapse or deviation in providing sufficient protection to the petitioner.

47. In the written submissions filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it has been submitted that it is the duty of the State Government to give full protection to the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and, at present, the Leader of the Opposition. The State Government has been providing "Z +" category of security with National Security Guard cover. The category of security given to the petitioner is as per the prayer in the writ petition. Even prior to the filing of the writ petition, the same level of security was being provided to the petitioner.

48. It has been further submitted that the details of the "Z +" scale of Security, as given by the petitioner, are as follows:

"Z+" SECURITY SCALE Sl No 25 Category PSO Weapon Uniform static guard Escort Watcher "Z+"-

Very Very high risk Two PSO round the clock One PSO in Uniform with automatic weapon and other with a concealed small arm in plain clothes Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office keeping in view the topography of the place Two escorts of strength 1-3 each with automatic weapons and light BP jackets for mobile protection Two watchers at a time during day and one at night

1. Provision of a bullet proof car whenever available for road journeys with Commandos carrying firearms.

2. One Inspector/Sub Inspector of Police in charge of security arrangements round the clock.

3. Perimeter wall fencing of sufficient height.

4. Adequate perimeter lighting.

5. Access control measures like searching, frisking, screening and communication staff-two at a time including a lady officer in 3 shifts.

6. Area security around residence and office.

Regular and thorough anti-sabotage places of stay/office and venues of functions to be attended by such protectees should be carried out by trained police/security personnel by visual means and with the help of technical equipments and sniffer dogs, depending on availability. Some protectees in the "Z +" category may also require Ring Round (RR) teams at the venues of public functions, depending on the local threat perception. Further, photo identity cards should be made mandatory for all personnel/household staff at office or residence of "Z" Special category of protectees.

Note: Deployment levels/norms suggested above lay down basic minimum requirements for the above category of protectees. The security arrangements may however be augmented as per the local or individual requirement based on the threat perception.

49. It has also been submitted that the Security arrangements to be made at the office/residence and during journeys, for "Z +" category of protectees, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

"i. Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office keeping in view the topography of the place. ii. Two escorts of strength 1-3 each with automatic weapons and light BP jackets for mobile protection. iii. Two personal security officers round the clock. One in uniform with automatic weapon and other with a concealed small arm in plain clothes. iv. Two Watchers at a time during day and one at night.

v. A bullet proof car wherever available, for road journey with Commandos carrying fire power. vi. One Inspector/Sub-Inspector of police in charge of security arrangements round the clock. vii. Perimeter wall and fencing of sufficient height.

viii. Adequate perimeter lighting.

ix. Access control measures searching, frisking, screening and communcation staff- two at a time, including a lady Officer in 3 shifts.

x. Area Security around the residence and Office.

Regular and thorough anti-sabotage checks at places of stay/office and venues of functions to be attended by such protectees should be carried out by trained police/security personnel by visual means and with the help of technical equipment, and sniffer dogs depending on availability. Some protectees in the "Z +" category may also require Ring Round (RR) teams at the venues of public functions, depending on the local threat perception. Further, Photo identity cards should be made mandatory for all personnel/household staff at office or residence of "Z +" special category of protectees."

50. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been provided "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover from 1.6.2001 and it has been ratified by the Security Review Committee, on 5.7.2001. The "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover given to the petitioner has not been reduced even after the petitioner had demitted office as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the month of May, 2006. While providing security to the petitioner, the guidelines communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, have been followed. The decision to continue the "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover for the protection of the petitioner had been taken in the Security Review Committee meetings held on 25.9.2007 and 26.10.2007. Further, the local police are also regularly marching Police beats and Police patrols to watch and screen the movement of strangers in the Poes Garden area where the petitioner generally resides. Regular anti-sabotage checks are made in the area surrounding the petitioner's residence and in the convoy of the petitioner by Bomb Detection and Disposal squads using sniffer dogs and special equipments. However, Provision of ambulance with life saving medicines and inclusion of Jammer vehicle in the convoy are not the security components for "Z +" category. Two petrol driven escort vehicles for the use of State Police Personnel and two more escort vehicles for the use of National Security Guard personnel are being regularly provided in connection with the security arrangements made for the protection of the petitioner. These escort cars are privately hired from the approved operators and the drivers are security vetted on a regular basis. Even though the petitioner has been preferring to use her own vehicle for her travel, a Bullet Proof Ambassador Car had been handed over to her Personal Security Officer, on 3.11.2007, and it forms a part of the convoy. Since the State Government is bound to protect the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, categorised as a protectee under the "Z +" Scale of Security, she has been provided adequate security arrangements by the State Government. However, the State Government is not willing to accept the proposal made by the counsel representing the petitioner to appoint a Committee to supervise the security arrangements provided to the petitioner. If such a Committee is constituted, the petitioner would be exposed to high risk. It is the exclusive duty of the respondents to give protection to the petitioner and the inclusion of outsiders to decide and supervise the matters relating to the provision of security to the petitioner would jeopardize her interests and it would cause security hazards.

51. Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Advocate General, had further submitted that all the necessary requirements prescribed for the protection of the petitioner have been provided and that the petitioner need not have any apprehension about the security provided to her. It was further submitted that sufficient security has been provided to the petitioner taking into account the threat perception, as well as the other necessary and relevant factors.

52. It has been emphatically submitted by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that the fifth respondent is an unnecessary party to the proceedings in view of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in so far as the fifth respondent is concerned. Further, it may not be possible for this Court to go into the factual aspects relating to the matter, invoking the powers available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the prayer of the petitioner has been complied with by the State Government, nothing survives in the writ petition.

53. At this juncture this Court finds it relevant to reflect upon the recent reports in the media showing that the issue of security, as a status symbol, has become a subject of public debate. In a nation struggling to cope with the reality of its poverty and pestilence, the debate is of serious significance. Therefore, to what extent the state can afford to expend its resources on such measures on coming to its carefully considered conclusions, after balancing the two important facets of democracy, namely, private rights and public duty, remains a moot question.

54. The question raised by certain segments of the society is whether this nation can afford to squander away its wealth in ways which are not directly contributing to or conducive for the nurturing of the common good. This nation can ill afford extravagance at any level when even two square meals a day becomes a luxury for many of its citizens. It is rightly said that providing the basic needs to the starving children would be the most important investment a society can make as they are the future of the nation. This is when their blood is made and their bones are formed. A decent standard of life should not be a distant dream for those who are at the wrong end of the social spectrum.

55. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the fifth respondent, who has been added as a respondent in the writ petition, in his personal capacity, is not a necessary or a proper party to the present proceedings. It would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus to the fifth respondent, as prayed for by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed as against the fifth respondent.

56. With regard to the petitioner's prayer seeking liberty to move this Court again if the petitioner finds any lapse or deviation in providing her the necessary protection, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to agitate the issue, before the appropriate forum, as and when it is found necessary, including by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, based on a fresh cause of action.

57. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner requesting this Court to direct the respondents to ensure full and sufficient protection to her with "Z +" Scale of Security, in view of the prevailing threat perception, there is no doubt that the respondents have a duty to perform by providing the petitioner with sufficient security considering her status as a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and as the Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Though it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has been provided with "Z +" Scale of Security, he has also submitted that the respondents would provide her with additional security, if found necessary. It is clear that the grade and scale of security, both in terms of quality and quantity, necessary to provide full and sufficient security to the petitioner would depend on various factors, including the threat perception prevailing at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, it is for the respondents to decide as to the scale of security to be provided to the petitioner, after taking into account all the necessary factors, including the threat perception as perceived by the petitioner.

58. As the custodian of the rights of its citizens the state has a bounden duty to protect and preserve the inherent rights of its citizens. The State cannot shirk its primary responsibility of providing an atmosphere in which every citizen could enjoy, in full measure, the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Though the State has a duty to protect everyone of its citizens, there are some who need enhanced protection due to their sensitive position or post or the role they play in public life. As such, there can be no doubt that the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the leader of the opposition in the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, deserves sufficient protection, especially, in view of the prevalent threat perception, as stated in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

59. While it is clear that the petitioner has to be provided with the necessary security to protect her from all present and potential threats, it is for the concerned authorities and Officers to arrive at their conclusions relating to the petitioner's security after considering and assessing all the relevant factors. Further, it is for the concerned authorities and officers to finally decide about the quantity and quality of such security to be provided to the petitioner. It is not for this Court to decide on the same as it would depend on various factual aspects, including a variety of technical and scientific knowledge which may not be available for assessment before this Court. It is best left to the authorities or officers concerned, who could come to their conclusions based on the necessary and relevant information. However, it is made clear that the state is duty bound to provide sufficient security to the petitioner wherever and whenever it is found necessary. The decision to provide the necessary security could be made taking into account the requests that may be made by the petitioner. It is understood that the State Government would consider the requests of the petitioner, keeping in view the men and material resources available at its disposal and, if necessary, by making a requisition from the other sources like the Central Government, wherever it is so permissible. No doubt, the grade and scale of security to be provided for a protectee would vary depending on the time and place, which are relevant factors to be taken into consideration.

60. The concept of threat perception has both subjective as well as objective components. The assessment or evaluation of the threat perception ought to be made taking into account the various factors that would constitute the same. Thus, it is clear that the assessment has to be made, also by taking note of the perception the petitioner has about her personal security. Therefore, the Security Review Committee ought to assess the grade and scale of security to be provided to a protectee considering the variable factors, as and when found necessary. The quantum and quality of security cannot remain stagnant or stale, and if they do, it cannot match the devilish designs of the disruptive forces, both from within the country and from alien shores. It is a highly disturbing trend worldwide that such evil forces are adept at using ingenious and innovative devices, to trigger large scale catastrophe and havoc, causing untold sorrow and terrible tragedies. In order to match such terrifying terrorism the nations of the world and their Governments have to upgrade their preparedness and firepower to forestall such events in future. No one can rest when such clandestine and cruel minds are at work to destroy peace, harmony and tranquility in our societies.

61. While the debate may go on, as to what is the right grade, quality and quantity of arms, ammunition and men that would be sufficient to provide full and sufficient protection to the protectees, there could be no doubt that both the Central and State Governments should make all sincere endeavours, to provide such security, as found necessary, taking into consideration all the relevant factors. Thus, it becomes necessary for the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner, and those made on her behalf, to arrive at the conclusions regarding the security to be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to depute a high ranking police officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, to meet the petitioner at her residence, as early as possible, not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to gather the necessary information regarding the threat perception prevailing with regard to the petitioner's personal security and to assess the security arrangements being provided to the petitioner.

62. The officer concerned is to place a detailed report, regarding the assessment made after the consultation with the petitioner, before the Security Review Committee to enable the State Government to take steps for augmenting the security arrangements to provide the petitioner sufficient security, as found appropriate and necessary.

63. Accordingly, with regard to the respondents 1 to 4, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also closed. No costs.

To:

1. The Chief Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai-600 009

2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009

3. The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004

4. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai-600 008

5. M.Karunanidhi Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court